Few issues in mental health law provoke as much debate as the insanity defense. While much attention has been focused on the insanity defense trial, the focus is now moving to release procedures. The controversy surrounding John Hinckley's recent request for an Easter release demonstrated confusion about the conditional release of NGRI acquittees into the community. That incident made it clear that we know very little about conditional release programs for insanity acquittees. Researchers have studied individual programs such as in Oregon and Maryland, but no comparative or generalizable studies have been conducted. To fill the gap in our understanding of conditional release, the proposed research will study four distinct conditional release programs. Four states have been selected to study these models of conditional release (Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, and New York). To compare the programs, this research has three distinct phases. In Phase One we will study the structure of conditional release programs in all 51 U.S. jurisdictions by analyzing statutes and case law and a survey of all state attorneys general and forensic directors. Phase Two will answer utilization questions by comparing persons found NGRI from 1984-1986 and conditionally released with persons found NGRI from 1984-1986 and not conditionally released. Structural variables identified in Phase One will be independent variables in Phase Two. During Phase Three we will study all persons conditionally released from 1984-1986 to study the success of persons conditionally released in each of the four models. Success will be defined by days in the community, rearrest, and revocation of release. This research will suggest how conditional release programs vary by important structural conditions and individual factors. The implications of this research may be used to determine what type of conditional release program most appropriately balances public protection with individual rights.